No-one likes general adverts, and ours hadn't been updated for ages, so we're having a clear-out and a change round to make the new ones useful to you. These new adverts bring in a small amount to help pay for the board and keep it free for you to use, so please do use them whenever you can, Let our links help you find great books on glass or a new piece for your collection. Thank you for supporting the Board.

I started a thread about a Caithness Dragonfly Ltd edition weight marked on the base C11G recently. The question was asked what do you Caithness do with the less than perfect ones? Answered ranged from "Caithness don't sell them through the factory shops" someone even suggested they are smashed by the maker. Someone said they are sold as a second in the shop along with the unlimited ones. The best answer I received seemed to be. To differentiate between the limited and unlimited ones a type of frosting in various forms was added to Ltd edition ones so as not to compromise the amount in the edition run.A few more with various patterns of the frosted etching seem to have come to light in different threads recently so if anyone is interested I thought I would start a thread so the subject is kept 'together'Just to add a further fly to the ointment I have just found what I believe is an earlyish? 1973 Fire Dance weight with the added frosting and the C11G mark on the base?Oddly though if it is 'Fire Dance' which was an unlimited pattern anyway why was the frosting added? prototype, test piece maybe?Without appearing over critical it is a rather poorly executed example.By the way it was purchased in Scotland from a charity shop in Peebles.Chris

First: Very good idea to collect info on these modified limited editions, sold as seconds. I am planning to write a short note on this topic for Scotland's Glass at some stage - and it would be useful to see as many examples as possible for this purpose, to see whether there is a "trend" in how this happened with time.

You yourself have mentioned the 1975 Dragonfly, also a limited edition.

I had mentioned an ebay auction of a 1974 Sea Crab, also a limited edition.

There were also images of a 1970 Moonflower - now, this is an unlimited edition. This raises the question: why was this Moonflower modified in a similar manner as "limited seconds", as unlimited weights could be sold as seconds without such a modification? For me the most plausible explanation would be that someone just practised on them.

I am pressty sure I have seen similar discussions on such modified Caithness weights on this board before: if you have one such weight (or had one) - would you, please, speak up by either linking to the already existing thread, or posting your images here.

Second: What happened to weights which didn't meet the standard? I guess we have to differentiate: there will haven been weights with minor flaws (like some change in colour or a small unwanted air bubble somewhere) and others where just something has gone wrong altogether (plus many grades in between). I am sure the really bad ones will actually have been destroyed - but the ones with minor flaws were sold in the factory shops. This was no problem with unlimited designs - but with limited designs something had to be changed to make it a "different" design, in order not to exceed the edition size. Now - as mentioned before, different people will have different opinions about this procedure - but as collectors we'll have to live with it.

Finally there is the question of marking seconds. There are scratched marks "CIIG" and "CG2" (and possibly others) and sandblasted marks "CIIG" - permanent marks, although they can be polished off, of course. At some stage it was decided, however, just to put "unselected" stickers on the base - which tend to "fall off" . Fortunately at this stage weights (first quality) were marked on the base as Caithness, usually with the design name added - whereas in the first years the was no marking (for unlimited weights) on the base - just a sticker (which again may have come off or been taken away on purpose).

So to distinguish:1. Early weights will be marked as seconds (unless first quality).2. Later weights may just be not marked at all (when a second).

Logged

Wolf Seelentag, St.GallenInterested in any aspect of Scottish glass? Have a look at Scotland's Glass.

Support the Glass Message Board by finding glass through glass-seek.com

The "FireDance" illustrated here is exactly the same as my FireDance, with hearts blasted (?) around the base and the large CIIG etched on the base.Mine is not a well-executed piece and I personally think it is an ugly design which simply does not "work".I only acquired it (cheaply, from a charity shop) because I did recognise that it was a fairly early design and thought it might be useful for Scotland's Glass. I have only manged to get one reasonable photograph out of about 70, which showed the design properly - but when I looked at it again, it had a bottle of talcum powder growing out of it. It and I just gaze balefully at each other now; it is sulking, and daring me to try again....

My Helen MacDonald "Edinburgh Rock" second, bought in the Crieff factory shop. It is not marked at all, but does not have the large facet "face" cut on it and the base is not polished to be shiney - it's more satinated.

Received this message from an eBay member in response to the listing of the 'Firedance' weight.The defacement to the sides is to prevent it being sold. I twas intended to be melted down but slipped through the net. Sorry to say it is just a curioussity with little value.

- qrz5459

Not sure about that theory if you are going to melt it down why bother to mark it C11G and go to the trouble of adding the frosting.Chris

caithness would not melt down any weights or glass as it would be very costly.... then what would you make with a batch of different coloured glass... now then so with the added pattern this must make it more rarer

Logged

cheers Ray

Support the Glass Message Board by finding glass through glass-seek.com

Received this message from an eBay member:"The defacement to the sides is to prevent it being sold. I twas intended to be melted down but slipped through the net.Sorry to say it is just a curiosity with little value."

Not sure about that theory if you are going to melt it down why bother to mark it C11G and go to the trouble of adding the frosting.

I would agree with two of the three statements:"Sorry to say it is just a curiosity with little value." .... correct"Not sure about that theory if you are going to melt it down why bother to mark it C11G and go to the trouble of adding the frosting." ... correct ... which means that I consider"The defacement to the sides is to prevent it being sold. I twas intended to be melted down but slipped through the net."a myth: if such weights would have been defaced at all, it would have been done in a much cruder way.

There was a related discussion in another thread - question: why put additional effort in, only to sell it as second? As I had pointed out then, this only applies to limited editions, for which seconds are not permitted - so a modification (to make it a "different" design) would allow this weight to be sold, rather than destroyed. However - there are also a few unlimited designs around, modified in a similar manner (I mean frosting to the side, not the CIIG mark) - why that? The only explanation I can think of is that it was given to trainees to practice certain things - these possibly should have been destroyed afterwards and slipped through .... but there are too many (limited designs) around to make this the general explanation.

It was also mentioned in another thread that Colin Terris had stated in writing (somewhere) that LE weights, which didn't meet the standard, were never sold as seconds but destroyed. This as general rule has to be considered as a myth (confirmed by people involved) - but may have been correct, of course, at any given time: policies do change!

I have seen a fair number of such modified weights on ebay over the years - unfortunately I never took notes, as I considered these weights practice pieces, without relevance for the online catalogue on Scotland's Glass. I have changed my mind after the discussions started here: by collecting which modified LE weights are on the market, we may be able to define a time frame when this practice was more common. So - let me repeat my plea above: if you own such a weight - or see one in an auction - report it in this thread here.

This does not(!) include LE weights which were not finished (e.g. not facetted) as these were "different" designs without additional frosting, or the like. They may (or may not) have had a "not selected" sticker on the base, which can easily come off.

Logged

Wolf Seelentag, St.GallenInterested in any aspect of Scottish glass? Have a look at Scotland's Glass.

Support the Glass Message Board by finding glass through glass-seek.com

Caithness would not melt down any weights or glass as it would be very costly.... then what would you make with a batch of different coloured glass...

It would definitely not be melted down to be recycled - the result would be a batch of glass without possible use. But such weights could be destroyed by pouring molten glass over them - I have seen that happen in a video, not sure if it was Caithness or Perthshire. That will(!) prevent them from being sold - adding some frosting does not.

Logged

Wolf Seelentag, St.GallenInterested in any aspect of Scottish glass? Have a look at Scotland's Glass.